Let the ban stay

As the International Whaling Commission prepares to hold its 62nd annual meeting from June 21 in Agadir, Morocco, there are strenuous attempts by a few nations to get the moratorium on the slaughter of whales lifted. The 24-year-old ban on commercial whaling has become an emotive issue for Japan, which cites historic and cultural reasons to justify its abhorrent hunts. There are some disturbing indications that behind the scenes, the cosmetics and food supplement industries may also be driving the agenda. The ban has not deterred Japan from sending factory ships each year into faraway Antarctic waters to hunt minke whales, and process their meat for sale. It has done so by invoking the IWC provision that allows the unilateral issue of permits to kill whales for scientific experiments. Iceland also used this loophole to launch a similar programme four years ago, while Norway has resorted to an objection clause to claim exemption from the moratorium. Such reasoning has become wearisome to the global conservation community, which finds little science emerging from the harpoons. The systematic violation of the ban has, on the other hand, seriously eroded the credibility of the IWC.

It would be monumental folly to accept the ‘compromise' proposal circulated in April by two senior IWC executives, including the chairman, to partially lift the ban on whaling commerce. Under that proposal, there will be small kill quotas for the existing whaling nations — Iceland, Norway, and Japan — and closer monitoring. The apprehension is that this measure could open the door to an enlarged whaling programme, attracting new entrants and marking a return to the 20th century horrors of large-scale massacres. What the IWC should really sponsor is more science for conservation. The argument for true research is forcefully made by Australia, which has petitioned the International Court of Justice on Japan's violations. A government-funded 2009 study titled “Conservation and Values: Global Cetaceans Summary Report” points out that only a few of the 86 species recognised by the scientific committee of the IWC have been closely studied. There is a major void in knowledge about the biology, ecology, and status of the others. For instance, although the pro-whaling group says there are enough minkes to allow hunting, the Red List of the conservation body IUCN says data on the species are “deficient.” Meanwhile, threats to whales from other human-made causes, such as fisheries conflicts, noise disturbance, ship strikes, and pollution are growing. The Agadir meeting will serve a useful purpose if it can strengthen science and consider ways to enforce the ban.

Thank you for this timely article. All kinds of self - professed people are making comments but you articles gives the true picture.

from:
Brinda

Posted on: Jun 20, 2010 at 14:53 IST

I see that those who support the resumption of whaling, and I am not sure who 'Save the Whales for real' is, - now seem to be saying that Japan's, Norway's and Iceland's whaling is ensuring that the 'world's whale populations are doomed.'

The deal rewards Iceland and Norway with much higher quotas than they have been in the past years. Indeed, Norway shall receive 100 whales more than they are currently taking, (takes have diminshed as its so uneconomic with declining home markets for whale meat). Again 80 minks and 80 fin whales for Iceland will only sustain an international market for these whales, because there is not the domestic market for so much whale meat.

The US has locked itself into achieving this deal as it gives it the ASW quota that Japan always challenges every five years. The Alaskan indigenous peoples have to go through the stress of Japan and her allies squeezing the US every time they bring their application before the IWC, as Japan argues that it should have a commercial quota if the US is to have a non-commercial quota.

The deal as its stands gives quotas but does nothing to address scientific whaling or whaling under objection. Indeed, these issues may not even be addressed immediately according to the IWC Chair, but may be 'discussed in the next ten years'. Ten years in which the whalers will have time to create new markets for new products and such trade will just mean more pressure to increase quotas.

Also, just to note Japan does NOT have a legal objection to the Southern Ocean Sanctuary for the hunting of fin whales and so this is regarded by many as illegal. Something this deal appears to want to reward them for.

from:
Chris Butler Stroud

Posted on: Jun 19, 2010 at 20:10 IST

If we LET THE BAN STAY then Japan will continue to conduct Research Hunting LEGALLY under IWC Article VIII. They will contininue to set the numbers, instead of the IWC. Under the IWC propsal all whaling will be monitored and DNA samplings taken. It will bring full control back into the hands of the IWC, the only international regulatory authority over whaling with an agenda to ensure healthy whale stocks, without which the world's whale populations are doomed.
Even ardent anti-whaling nations like the U.S. amd New Zealand see the
importance of concluding a negotiated IWC propsal as it will reduce the number of whales killed.

from:
Save the Whales for real

Posted on: Jun 19, 2010 at 03:14 IST

Thanks you for this lucid reading of what is happening in Agadir.

The US and those in favour of the 'deal' are portraying it as a 'peace deal for whales', when it is, as you say, a lifting of the moratorium and the licensing of the slaughter of thousands of sentient beings.

The deal rewards those nations that refused to abide by the past decisions of the IWC and sets an example for all nations that if you do not wish to be bound by international agreements, then all you have to do is hold out and eventually others will capitulate.

This deal repudiates science, abdicates international environmental responsibility and brings conservation down to the lowest common denominator.

All nations should reject this so called 'deal' and actually rise to the challenge of facing up to Japan, Iceland and Norway's intransigence rather than capitulating to their intransigence